Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Bambrick Bros. Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 16324.,16324.
• Parties: HYDRAULIC PRESS BRICK CO. v. BABRICK BROS. CONST. CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

211 S.W. 93

HYDRAULIC PRESS BRICK CO. v. BABRICK BROS. CONST. CO. et al.

No. 16324.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Submitted on Briefs March 5, 1919.

Opinion Filed April 8, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by the Hydraulic Press Brick Company against the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company and others. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the named defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

See, also, 205 S. W. 801.

T. J. Rowe, of St. Louis, for appellant. Henry H. Oberschelp, of St. Louis, for respondent Laclede Trust Co.

Elliot, Chaplin, Blaney & Bedal, of St. Louis, for respondent Hydraulic Press Brick Co.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This is a suit commenced in the circuit court October 5th, 1914, to recover a judgment for material furnished in the erection of a building on lots in the city of St. Louis, brought by the Hydraulic Press Brick Company, under the provisions of the Mechanics' Lien Law, as amended by the Act approved April 3rd, 1911 (see Laws 1911, p. 314), and makes parties defendant those claiming ownership or interests in the property or liens on it. Among other parties defendant is the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company, a corporation, as to which it was alleged that it had filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis its lien against the property described in the sum of $202.15; that thereafter this defendant gave notice of its intention to file suit to enforce the same before a justice of the peace; that said defendant did so file suit and that it is now pending and undetermined. It is prayed in the petition that the court issue an order staying the prosecution of this suit commenced by the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company before the justice of the peace, until the determination of the present suit, and that the court determine and establish and enforce the various and respective rights of the parties to this suit, etc. The Bambrick Brothers Construction Company filed a demurrer to the petition, on the ground that there was an improper joinder of parties defendant and that the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action either at law or in equity against the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company. This was overruled. Thereupon the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company answered, admitting that on August 7th, 1914, it had filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis its lien against the property described in the sum of $292.15; that thereafter it filed in that court notice of its intention to file suit to enforce it before the justice of the peace and did file that suit, and denies that it is now pending and undetermined, averring that on December 22nd, 1914, the justice, in the case of Bambrick Brothers Construction Company, plaintiff, and against Monroe Construction Company, James T. Horan, Hal A. Belyew and Fannie Belyew, his wife, Richard F. Goodnow, Fred W. Lovett and John S. Hemphill, had rendered a judgment against the defendants, setting it out, and which, in effect, finds an indebtedness in favor of Bambrick Brothers Construction Company against the defendant Horan for the sum claimed and interest, a total of $303.09, with costs, and adjudged the same to be a lien against certain buildings situated on lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30, in city block 4391-B; that afterwards, on January 15th, 1915, the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company had filed a certified copy of the judgment in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis and that the judgment rendered by the justice is final and together with costs in the cause now remains unpaid and unsatisfied, and that the Bambrick Brothers Construction Company proposes and intends to issue an' execution on the judgment for the purpose of having the same satisfied. The answer further denies knowledge or information as to all the other allegations in the petition and denies them. The lots there described are the same as those described and involved in this suit. No effort to establish a lien in this suit was made, appe...